Economics and Reducing Abortion?

[Lisa_N]

jlw:

HA!! God bless you LisaN, but I wouldn’t mind if you HAD to find other work!!

NO more income taxes!! Only SALES taxes!! Then all taxes COULD BE TRACKED, right???

Actually I do believe a consumption tax would be more effective in nailing the great untaxed than our current system. If you are working in a legitimate business or earn wagers, it’s pretty hard to avoid paying taxes. OTOH there are lots of under the table, cash businesses, not to mention illegal businesses and illegal residents that can avoid INCOME taxes but cannot avoid sales/consumption taxes. There is a legitimate concern that sales taxes tend to be regressive but there may be a way around that problem but carving out certain things like food or medical care as not being subject to sales taxes.

Believe me I don’t enjoy preparing tax returns. I spend most of the year doing just regular accounting so if the IRS were abolished I’d still have plenty to do!

Lisa

 

[jlw]

Brad:

Yes, but

1. It doesn’t say anything about requiring a worker to have this kind of wage. It simply says IF the worker has this kind of wage, what he should do if he is prudent.
2. I’m not sure of the source of this document based on the fact that it conflicts with the Vatican document.

Are you guyes talking about Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Centesimus Annus ??

 

[jlw]

Lisa N:

Actually I do believe a consumption tax would be more effective in nailing the great untaxed than our current system. If you are working in a legitimate business or earn wagers, it’s pretty hard to avoid paying taxes. OTOH there are lots of under the table, cash businesses, not to mention illegal businesses and illegal residents that can avoid INCOME taxes but cannot avoid sales/consumption taxes.
Believe me I don’t enjoy preparing tax returns. I spend most of the year doing just regular accounting so if the IRS were abolished I’d still have plenty to do!

Lisa

NOt only would it “nail the great untaxed”, but it would increase all “living wages” (that is, *our take-home pay) *across the board. Because corporations wouldn’t have to pay millions to corporate tax attorneys to AVOID income taxes, prices of goods could be less.

If a national sales tax was tacked on to the good or service, essentially, in the end, the consumer prices of goods would remain the same, while wages increased!!

There is a legitimate concern that sales taxes tend to be regressive but there may be a way around that problem but carving out certain things like food or medical care as not being subject to sales taxes.

AGREED!!

Or increasing the child tax credit even more?? Or for those with more than 4 children??

 

[Brad]

jlw:

Are you guyes talking about Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Centesimus Annus ??

No.

Rerum Novarum.

 

[jlw]

Brad:

No.

Rerum Novarum.

Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical on economics.

Well, that is perfect, because the article I cite in post #156 speaks of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Centesimus Annus (“The Hundredth Year”, as in 100 years since Rerum Novarum). It goes a long way toward answering the misconceptions about socialism and capitalism and how it fits into our Catholic Faith.

 

[Brad]

jlw:

Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical on economics.

Well, that is perfect, because the article I cite in post #156 speaks of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Centesimus Annus (“The Hundredth Year”, as in 100 years since Rerum Novarum). It goes a long way toward answering the misconceptions about socialism and capitalism and how it fits into our Catholic Faith.

I assume that you mean how capitalism fits into our Catholic faith but socialism does not. That seems to be the pattern in the social encyclicals.

 

[jlw]

Brad:

I assume that you mean how capitalism fits into our Catholic faith but socialism does not. That seems to be the pattern in the social encyclicals.

BINGO.

 

[Philip_P]

Brad:

Ahh yes. Materialism. A subset of the dominating, secularlism mindset. The living standards are up but so are the debt levels, causing financial stress, a big contributer to broken families.

Um, isn’t that what I said? Though I’d replace ‘secularism’ with ‘capitalist.’ The compulsion to accumulate as much stuff as possible seems to afflict urban, suburban, rural, liberal, and conservative alike.
Lisa N:

I assure you as an employer we cannot get anyone for $5.15 an hour for even our relatively unskilled positions.

The minimum wage in Oregon is $7.25. Is this a living wage? I don’t know. The federal $5.15 an hour certainly isn’t. The New York minimum of $6.00 isn’t either, especially considering how much greater the cost of living is in New York compared to Oregon. Like I said, those with the expertise can figure out the formula to determine a living wage, but that it’s a legitimate goal shouldn’t even be a question.
Lisa N:

Now there are jobs that have big responsibilities but lower pay such as child care workers, social workers, and counsellors. But it’s a matter of supply and demand. Lots of people want those jobs and so the price is deflated. The reality is that you can’t have your dream job at a dream salary. It’s usually a trade off

If only that logic were applied consistently. There are lots of people that want to be corporate CEO’s too, but CEO wages don’t suffer because of it. Companies justify high executive compensation by saying that it’s necessary to attract the best quality. Fine, but shouldn’t the same logic apply to the people we entrust to educate our children and assist our families?

As far as fears of inflation, wages historically rise faster than prices. That’s why the proposal to peg social security benefits to prices, rather than wages, is often described as a benefit cut. In any case, arguing that the wage floor shouldn’t be raised for fear of increasing prices ignores the astronomically increasing wage ceiling.

I’m really at a loss as to the rationale for opposing a living wage (and it really shouldn’t take an encyclical to make the point, though thanks for taking the time post those passages Richardols)

Since no one has commented on more generous time-off benefits for parents of young children, can I take it to mean you’re not opposed? (and if you are, please explain).

Also, I must say I’m surprised at Lisa and jlw’s openness to a consumption tax. Canada and many European countries tax along those lines. Unlike Lisa, I’m not a tax expert, so I won’t try to weigh in one way or the other on this.

 

[jlw]

If only that logic were applied consistently. There are lots of people that want to be corporate CEO’s too, but CEO wages don’t suffer because of it. Companies justify high executive compensation by saying that it’s necessary to attract the best quality. Fine, but shouldn’t the same logic apply to the people we entrust to educate our children and assist our families?

But there are private schools with basic salaries and no benefits that attract good teachers. Why, do you think??

As far as fears of inflation, wages historically rise faster than prices

Really?? I’m not totally refuting you. Just skeptical.

Basically, when an employer MUST pay a worker more, he’s got to get the money from SOMEWHERE. Usually, it is the consumer.

I’m really at a loss as to the rationale for opposing a living wage (and it really shouldn’t take an encyclical to make the point, though thanks for taking the time post those passages Richardols)

While I agree that corporate conglomerate CEO’s are compensated waaaaay too much (just an opinion, btw) a “living wage” depends on not just what a man makes, but also what a man SPENDS.

Should a man be paid according to his needs, or to his skills?? A man is in charge of both!! He can make choices that affect his needs (Live simply. Live chastly), and he can make choices that affect his marketability (education, skill level, seniority).

Since no one has commented on more generous time-off benefits for parents of young children, can I take it to mean you’re not opposed? (and if you are, please explain).

I am an advocate of time-off benefits to a degree. But I am also an advocate of one provider/one caregiver two-parent homes too. SO, the new mother, who isn’t working, would not have “time-off” benefits that an employer would have to pay, thusly reducing the financial burden on the employer, and freeing up money to…give another sole provider a job??? Or increase the wages of his employees??

Also, I must say I’m surprised at Lisa and jlw’s openness to a consumption tax. Canada and many European countries tax along those lines. Unlike Lisa, I’m not a tax expert, so I won’t try to weigh in one way or the other on this.

Did you read my post regarding the offsetting results of doing away with income taxes and instituting a national sales tax?? Re-read.

 

[Lisa_N]

Philip P:

. The minimum wage in Oregon is $7.25. Is this a living wage? I don’t know. The federal $5.15 an hour certainly isn’t. The New York minimum of $6.00 isn’t either, especially considering how much greater the cost of living is in New York compared to Oregon. Like I said, those with the expertise can figure out the formula to determine a living wage, but that it’s a legitimate goal shouldn’t even be a question…

The problem is that “living wage” is a completely relative term. How many people and where/how will they live? For example $7.15 would result in $14,872 per year. It would be difficult for a family of four to live on in Portland because housing is very expensive. But it would probably be doable in some of the smaller towns. Also realize that at some levels of income you are eligible for benefits. I think the level for food stamps is around $20,000+ per year. So that family would get food stamps and could use the Food Bank. They would be eligible for subsidized, low income housing. They would be eligible for medicaid. So realize you could never come up with a ‘living wage’ because there would be so many factors. Also would you suggest any employer could get away with paying a different wage for a man with a family and a single who are doing the same job? You’d have a DOL complaint so fast your head would spin.
Philip P:

If only that logic were applied consistently. There are lots of people that want to be corporate CEO’s too, but CEO wages don’t suffer because of it. Companies justify high executive compensation by saying that it’s necessary to attract the best quality. Fine, but shouldn’t the same logic apply to the people we entrust to educate our children and assist our families?.

You forgot one essential element, yes there are a lot of people who want to run General Motors or play for the Knicks but the pool of QUALIFIED people is pretty small. Inherent in the ‘supply’ is the concept of qualified applicant. IOW say there is a social work job that pays $25,000 which is not a lot. It requires an MSW and experience. They will have MANY applicants for that job because there is quite honestly a plethora of MSW’s out there looking for work–particularly lately as funding has dried up. OTOH say there is a job for an engineer that starts at $60K. THere will not be a lot of qualified applicants although there are probably more people who’d like to earn $60K than $25K.

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

Philip P:

As far as fears of inflation, wages historically rise faster than prices. That’s why the proposal to peg social security benefits to prices, rather than wages, is often described as a benefit cut. In any case, arguing that the wage floor shouldn’t be raised for fear of increasing prices ignores the astronomically increasing wage ceiling…

No you are comparing apples and oranges. THere may be millions of employees who would be impacted by a change in the wage floor but very few who hit the ‘wage ceiling.’ Wages raise or fall depending on the demand for that profession and the number of applicants. For example, for years nurses were really underpaid because quite honestly women had only a couple of options. They could become a nurse or a teacher. Now those same smart women who used to become nurses or teachers are now becoming attorneys or architects or doctors. Thus fewer women are choosing nursing as a career, the pool is depleting and the pay is quite good.

Further because people see nursing as a growing profession there is a HUGE demand for slots in nursing schools. The market takes care of itself. And people are free to move to different locations (I suggest avoiding the NW) and free to move to other professions.
Philip P:

I’m really at a loss as to the rationale for opposing a living wage (and it really shouldn’t take an encyclical to make the point, though thanks for taking the time post those passages Richardols).

Because it is a matter of opinion, not calculation. One person might be able to live on $8 per hour another would feel strapped at $10 an hour. It depends on the area and cost of living. Think about it. If I want to live on the west side of Portland I will have to make more money than on the east side. So if I choose to live on the west side does that mean my employer has to pay me more? Or as I said previously, would an employer be expected to pay a married man with kids more than a single with no kids just because he needs more to support a family? You know, employers USED to be able to discrminate like that. Not anymore.
Philip P:

Since no one has commented on more generous time-off benefits for parents of young children, can I take it to mean you’re not opposed? (and if you are, please explain)…

Do you mean PAID time off? No I don’t believe people should have unlimited paid time off and those companies that offer sabbaticals and such would not make that much difference to a child. So you take off three months instead of six weeks? How will that help? Again, I suggest let the market take care of it. We had a very valuable employee who had a baby. She had used up her leave and vacation but wanted to take time off. We accommodated her request for three months unpaid leave with her job waiting when she returned. We had another employee who had a National Guard leave and we allowed her to take the time off and return with her job intact.

Are you suggesting that taxpayers pay women to stay home with kids? We already have that. It’s called welfare.
Philip P:

Also, I must say I’m surprised at Lisa and jlw’s openness to a consumption tax. Canada and many European countries tax along those lines. Unlike Lisa, I’m not a tax expert, so I won’t try to weigh in one way or the other on this.

Why are you surprised? It makes perfect sense to use a consumption tax because it spreads the burden among a larger group, it catches those under the radar screen and for the most part it is completely under your control. If you buy an expensive car or a fur coat, there will be a large sales tax on it. Again, it’s a choice.

Our current system although Dems rant about cuts for the wealthy does NOT tax wealth. It taxes EARNINGS. It taxes PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE and Teresa Heinz Kerry sitting on her portfolio of muni bonds pays less in taxes than a waitress. I see our system as INCREDIBLY unfair and punishing the productive.

Lisa N

 

[jlw]

Our current system although Dems rant about cuts for the wealthy does NOT tax wealth. It taxes EARNINGS. It taxes PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE and Teresa Heinz Kerry sitting on her portfolio of muni bonds pays less in taxes than a waitress. I see our system as INCREDIBLY unfair and punishing the productive.
Lisa N

We should be taxing CONSUMERISM (the buying and selling of unneeded cr*p!)

 

[chicago]

Richardols:

You disagree with Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum, then. In §65, he said that it was not enough for an employer to pay a worker a wage, but one “sufficiently large to enable him to provide comfortably for himself, his wife, and children.”

If that isn’t a definition of a “living wage,” I don’t know what is. But, why should I be surprised at your statement? I don’t expect Republicans to care very much for the working man - they never did, never will.

Not to mention Bishop Sheen!

 

[chicago]

Lisa N:

Not at all. It is an vastly INCREASED standard of living vis a vis that of the 50s, 60s and even 70s. I don’t know how old you are but I suspect 30 or under. When I grew up (60s) most people lived in houses with one bathroom. They had one TV set in the one living room. They may have had one car. Vacations consisted of camping or visiting relatives. Eating out was a luxury. We played outside in our yards or in local parks or schoolyards. Young marrieds expected to live frugally while saving up to buy a home. That was the same for my parents’ generation and their parents as well.

Now look at what is considered ‘middle class;’ HUGE homes, we call them Mc Mansions in this city. Family rooms, game rooms, bonus rooms, HUGE kitchens, nooks, formal dining rooms, bedrooms for each child and an office. Two or three cars, two or three TVs, computers, luxury vacations, meals out several times a week, organized play or organized sports, etc etc etc.

A one wage earner family can have a decent and by world standards great lifestyle if they don’t demand all of today’s consumer goods.

Yet, in a way, hasn’t the increased consumerism come about due to the wide availability of cheap goods and cheap labor; along with an insistence that we must keep goods cheap (and consequently labor costs low) in order to continually justify this kind of lifestyle and keep the economy growing?

 

[chicago]

Lisa N:

The problem is that “living wage” is a completely relative term. How many people and where/how will they live? For example $7.15 would result in $14,872 per year. It would be difficult for a family of four to live on in Portland because housing is very expensive. But it would probably be doable in some of the smaller towns. Also realize that at some levels of income you are eligible for benefits. I think the level for food stamps is around $20,000+ per year. So that family would get food stamps and could use the Food Bank. They would be eligible for subsidized, low income housing. They would be eligible for medicaid. So realize you could never come up with a ‘living wage’ because there would be so many factors. Also would you suggest any employer could get away with paying a different wage for a man with a family and a single who are doing the same job? You’d have a DOL complaint so fast your head would spin.

Why does paying a “living wage” necessarily have to be a government regulated thing? Shouldn’t employers, acting out of a sense of moral responsibility, merely strive to take on the task themselves within the appropriate local circumstances? Wouldn’t that, itself, begin to serve in raising the bar via the “market” of what is expected and necessary in order to get good employees and run a successful business? And, if we are going to hold individuals’ feet to the fire as to their responsibility in being economically sucessful as workers, why shouldn’t businesses have their personal moral and economic responsibility held up to the same standard?

 

[chicago]

Hardly. From Ben Franklin to Abraham Lincoln to Norman Vincent Peal to David Scwartz to George Bush, “conservatives” have expressed the notion that if you believe in yourself and you do not quit then you can accomplish what you set out to accomplish. Someone did Hillary a big favor. Unfortunately, she has not returned in like kind what she has been given.

What I propose is that we start teaching young kids that their are different roles and vocations. Fatherhood and motherhood are more important that vocations. Working mothers should not be the ideal.

Brad,

How do you reconcile these two statements? Afterall, if what is truly important and valuable is to “be all that you can be”, then why should one accept something seemingly less (by those standards) because of some intrinsic unique value of purpose and meaning appropriate to your being and your task?

 

[chicago]

Please pardon me if I’m not around for a couple or three days after having made these interventions. I simply may not find the opportunity to get back to the board. I have 10.5 hours left to spend with Mr. Wagner and the Ring is an unforgiving master. Damn lust for gold and renunciation of love!

 

[Lisa_N]

chicago:

Why does paying a “living wage” necessarily have to be a government regulated thing? Shouldn’t employers, acting out of a sense of moral responsibility, merely strive to take on the task themselves within the appropriate local circumstances? Wouldn’t that, itself, begin to serve in raising the bar via the “market” of what is expected and necessary in order to get good employees and run a successful business? And, if we are going to hold individuals’ feet to the fire as to their responsibility in being economically sucessful as workers, why shouldn’t businesses have their personal moral and economic responsibility held up to the same standard?

Chicago I don’t really understand your point and apparently you won’t be around for a while to respond, but here goes: Employers and employees are both in a somewhat regulated marketplace. There are wage and hour laws, worker’s compensation laws, OSHA (a total waste IMO) that keep the workplace from something out of a Sinclair Lewis novel. But beyond that both employers and employees are free to negotiate what benefits them. Slavery has been against the law for quite some time now and employees who are unhappy with their jobs can decide whether the grass is greener somewhere else. Similarly employers do not have to provide one more benefit or pay anymore than the market requires.

Employers are always looking for good employees. As an employer I assure you that we are every bit as aware of the marketplace as is the employee. We ‘bid’ on the services of an employee, offering what we think it will take to entice that employee to work for us versus another competitor.

Unfortunately there are people who either do not have the job skills or personality skills or education to have much choice. But why should we pay a high school dropout more than the market requires to flip burgers? Often such drudgery will inspire that kid to go back to school as he doesn’t want a lifetime of this kind of work. I know when I was a flakey kid out of high school trying to ‘find myself’ working at a series of low paying nasty jobs inspired me to get off my butt and take college seriously. No employer should have had to pay more than the market required for my (then) minimal skills.

Lisa N

 

[Philip_P]

jlw:

But there are private schools with basic salaries and no benefits that attract good teachers. Why, do you think??

There are also public schools with basic salaries and no benefits that attract good teachers. Humanity isn’t corrupt through and through; there are people who will sacrifice for a cause they believe in. Is it just to rely on the sacrifices of these heroic individuals?

jlw:

Basically, when an employer MUST pay a worker more, he’s got to get the money from SOMEWHERE. Usually, it is the consumer.

If I have to pay an extra 50 cents so for my Taco Bell Burrito or a few extra dollars for those jeans because employers have to pay their employees more, so be it. Opposition to just wages because we’re addicted to cheap consumer goods is churlish bordering on morally irresponsible. Really, after all the talk about personal sacrifice and responsibility, I shouldn’t have to make this point (or are consumers exempted from morally responsibility?)

jlw:

Should a man be paid according to his needs, or to his skills?? A man is in charge of both!!

There are a lot of needs an individual has no control over. The cost of health care. The cost of decent housing. The cost of bread, milk, and eggs. The cost of gasoline.
LisaN:

The problem is that “living wage” is a completely relative term. How many people and where/how will they live?..

Also realize that at some levels of income you are eligible for benefits. I think the level for food stamps is around $20,000+ per year. So that family would get food stamps and could use the Food Bank. They would be eligible for subsidized, low income housing. They would be eligible for medicaid. So realize you could never come up with a ‘living wage’ because there would be so many factors.I would hope that a living wage would go some way to making benefits such as food stamps and subsidize housing less necessary. I support these programs because they are a necessary safety net. You can’t complain about the government dole on one hand and then oppose paying people enough so they don’t need to go on the dole on the other. As far as differing household sizes, that’s probably best addressed through tax structure rather than wage structure.

Also, as far as the variability of cost, personally I think the minimum wage should be a formula based on local conditions rather than a discrete amount, much like other variable benefits. The new minimum wage calculation could be released annually by the DOL. This would address the problem of purchasing power erosion and neutralize minimum wage as a political issue since labor advocates wouldn’t constantly have to push for an increase.

more…

 

[Philip_P]

LisaN:

You forgot one essential element, yes there are a lot of people who want to run General Motors or play for the Knicks but the pool of QUALIFIED people is pretty small. Inherent in the ‘supply’ is the concept of qualified applicant. IOW say there is a social work job that pays $25,000 which is not a lot. It requires an MSW and experience. They will have MANY applicants for that job because there is quite honestly a plethora of MSW’s out there looking for work–particularly lately as funding has dried up.

But the number of applicants does not affect the number of openings. If there are only, say, 5 positions, it doesn’t matter if 50 or 500 apply, there are still only 5 positions. Hire the 5 most qualified, pay them a decent salary, let the rest go. The employer is not morally responsible for their decision to apply for the job. Once the employer hires, however, the employer is certainly morally obliged to pay a just wage.
LisaN:

THere may be millions of employees who would be impacted by a change in the wage floor but very few who hit the ‘wage ceiling.’

Maybe I see it more living in a concentrated urban environment, but increasing wages in the upper brackets often has very visible effects. Higher wage earners move into a neighborhood, buildings start going condo, everyone’s rent increases, food prices increase, and pretty soon long-time residents are displaced and communities disrupted.
LisaN:

Do you mean PAID time off? No I don’t believe people should have unlimited paid time off and those companies that offer sabbaticals and such would not make that much difference to a child.

I don’t necessarily have specific time-off benefits in mind, just wondering if it was a question of ideological opposition (as apparently the living wage is) or implementation. Many European countries have far more generous time-off benefits (and though their birth rates are lower, abortion rates are also dramatically lower, so let’s not write that model off too quickly. I suspect birth rates will begin to rise again as immigration increases, anyway).

Pres. Bush was pushing flex-time a while back, but the he wanted the decision to be in the hands of the employer rather than the employee, which only benefits employers who don’t want to pay overtime. Employees need to have more flexibility to balance careers and families, and to change that balance over time. Again, I don’t have any specific proposals here, but as a goal it seems workable.
LisaN:

Why are you surprised? It makes perfect sense to use a consumption tax because it spreads the burden among a larger group, it catches those under the radar screen and for the most part it is completely under your control.

I’m surprised because this is the sort of argument I usually hear from the left, not the right. It sounds almost heretical coming from conservatives.

Ok, it’s been fun, but I need to take a break from the forums, they’ve been taking up more of my time than is healthy recently. I’m sure we’ll take up these discussions again in the near future. You’ve all provided good food for thought and illuminated areas I need to become better informed in. I hope you’ve found the discussion equally fruitful.